[tmpX7dMeXU]

In the interest of fairness, you could reverse your whole comment and it would still ring true.

Not to say that you are implying it yourself, but when these points are usually made, it comes with an implication that the “extroverts” are seeking to perform some sort of superfluous duty, or something that is at the very least leaser.

Again, in the interest of fairness, anyone that isn’t able to see that WFH presents genuine challenges for leadership that aren’t just about “micromanaging”, “butts in seats”, or “feeling important”, really needs to dig deeper.

Speaking from the perspective of someone that recently had to build a small team from scratch entirely remotely, it has certainly been harder to build momentum, culture, rapport, etc remotely. These things are all important and all materially affect productivity. Onboarding is substantially harder. I had a severely underperforming team member (my standards aren’t terribly high, he interviewed really well, and I’m almost certain he was trying snd failing at over-employment), and working remotely turned it from essentially a non-issue into a months-long ordeal.

This incessant tribalism by esp. developers over the topic of remote work is ridiculously childish.

[pdonis]

> This incessant tribalism by esp. developers over the topic of remote work is ridiculously childish.

No, it isn't, it's a symptom of the fact that herding everyone into the same building whether it is actually necessary or not is an outdated business concept, and now that employees have the wherewithal to push back--because now there is abundant evidence that lots of jobs can be done by remote work--they are pushing back. From an employee's perspective, even if there might be some benefits to having everyone in the same office, there are huge costs associated with having to commute back and forth to an office every work day, and having to live close enough to work to make that feasible, meaning your choice of where to live is dictated by your job. In the past those costs were unavoidable so employees simply had no choice but to suck them up. Now employees have a choice.

Yes, that means that managers who are used to managing in an everyone-in-the-office environment will now have to learn how to manage in a remote work environment. That's always one of the risks of being a manager: the game can change at any time, and you either adapt or you go out of business.

[Volundr]

> Again, in the interest of fairness, anyone that isn’t able to see that WFH presents genuine challenges for leadership that aren’t just about “micromanaging”, “butts in seats”, or “feeling important”, really needs to dig deeper.

Can you present some of these challenges? I've actually done director level management both in person and remote, and I don't know what they are. When asking this question to management looking to RTO, it usually comes down to "how do I know who is working and who isn't?", and in my experience if you don't know who on your team is productive remote, you probably don't in the office either. You just see bustle and assume it's productivity.

Other challenges like running effective video calls are already problems in person in medium to large organizations. I find it easier to keep everyone in the loop when everyone is remote, vs having to remember to update the team in New York about the conversation that happened in California.

[marcosdumay]

Nah, I fully sympathize with this problem, and fully acknowledge that it's harder. I don't think anybody would disagree.

I'm still fully committed into forcing your hand. It's your problem to solve (or did you want that salary increase to come with less responsibility), not mine. At the same time, once in a lifetime, I have the upper hand, and I'm not letting it pass.

The incessant tribalism by esp. managers insisting that workers just give away anything they want and never negotiate is ridiculously childish.